myers (04/17/83)
Tom Craver's remarks: There is no such thing as economic coercion. It is possible to use money to arrange for fraud or direct use of physical force, but that is not the same thing. Governments dont have to accept our aid, and would probably be wiser if they chose to remain free of any outside influence. Removal of aid is not an aggressive action, nor is it coercion. The US certainly has a right to decide which types of governments it will support. If a government can't run its country without long term financial assistance, it is doing something wrong. There is a big difference between what the US did in the Phillipines and what the USSR did in Afganistan. First, the US did not conquer the Phillipines, it went in there during WWII. I seem to recall that this was done to drive out the Japanese invaders. Secondly, the government set up there is at least partially based on principles of individual rights. So the means of gaining influence was not imperialistic, and the result was not imperialistic. Yes, the US does have influence with that country, but not control, as would be the case if it were part of an "empire". Reply: Money is power. Here is a typical "economic imperialist" scenario... All countries have their own powerful elites, landed aristocracy, goverment bureaucrats, etc. With a "big stick" here, and the right bribes and promises there, a developed nation's corporations export capital to the underdeveloped nation. This is a lucrative opportunity for such corporations initially due to the very low wages they will have to pay, abundant natural resources, etc. Typically, the underdeveloped nation's economy will grow, but predominantly in the sectors which international capital pushes it. The emphasis is on products which will sell well internationally, not on those which will benefit the host nation in the long run. While the corporations profit enormously, the host country gets a little piece of the pie; as most of the labor in the country is expended on enriching the international corporations, the purely local economic growth lags behind the pace at which it might otherwise grow; the country is forced more and more to import foodstuffs and other necessities, usually from the offending imperialist nation. When international capital decides to leave or is forced to leave by a population which is tired of enriching other nations at its expense, the economy typically becomes a shambles. The country finds itself without the indigenous industry required for self-sufficiency, its land depleted because sugar-cane has been growing on it for years, and not corn or wheat. The underdeveloped country must borrow money to feed its people and develop local industry, just as the typical American must borrow money to buy a house in which to live. Also, the little country is dependent on its exploiter for spare part for cars, machinery, etc., which the exploiter has been kind enough to sell to it over the years. You might check out the history of the United Fruit Company in the Caribbean countries. Alot of countries must be "doing something wrong", many are heavily in debt for various reasons. Alot of Americans who have loans must be doing the same thing wrong; trying to stay alive without stealing from others. Removal of aid IS an agressive action when the reason for it is that one doesn't like the needy person/country. Suppose, even though you had an excellent credit rating (like Chile did), an influential local banker who disliked your politics persuaded all the other bankers not to give you a loan to pay the interest on your prior loans. You then are forced to sell part of your business to stay afloat. Was the banker's action an act of aggression, or an exercise of his "rights"? I'm afraid Mr. Craver has his facts a bit muddled about the Phillipines. It was in fact "conquered" (annexed) by the US from Spain following the Spanish-American war in 1898, the United State's only overtly imperialistic war. But, of course, all developed countries were doing it then - we had to "save" the Phillipines, Guam, and Hawaii from the clutches of Japan, Russia, and Germany, who were also eyeing them. Yes, Japan did take it away from us in WWII (McArthur first became famous in the defense of the Phillipines), and we did reoccupy it. Mr. Craver also asked about documentary evidence of US meddling in Chilean domestic affairs (leading to the murder of Allende and countless thousands of "Marxist" peasants, workers, officials, etc., and the rule of the current military junta under Pinochet (Pah!)). I will refer netters to two good sources: 1) "Missing" by Thomas Houser, nominated for the Pulitzer Prize. A very readable account of US meddling and a good introduction to the issues involved, in the process of documenting the execution of Charles Horman (an American in Chile) by the military with probable approval by US government personnel in Chile at the time. Houser is currently being sued by the US for "defamation of character"; it is probable he will lose because vital documents for his defense have been classified for "national security reasons". The movie, which I've heard is quite faithful to the book, was nominated for a couple of Oscars this year. I believe it starred Jack Lemmon and Sissie Spacek. Has anyone out there seen it? I heartily reccommend the book. 2) "Covert Action in Chile (1963-1973)" (Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1975). This is a report produced by the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, the famous "Church Committee", as it was chaired by Frank Church. I would be happy to summarize the critical US actions if there is interest. I apologize for rambling on as long as I have. Jeff Myers myers@uwvax